On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:05:43 Jim Elwell wrote: >At 04:37 PM 4/25/2002 -0400, Joseph B. Reid wrote: >>If you have a page layout that fits 5.5 by 8.5 it can't be enlarged to fit >>8.5 by 11. If you have a page layout that fits 148 by 210 it can be >>enlarged to a perfect fit with 210 by 297. > >This is, of course, correct. But it simply does not matter in the great >majority of uses of paper by the great majority of users. Certainly not >enough to, in and of itself, justify switching the whole USA to a different >set of paper sizes. > >I want to emphasize, however, that I am not against these "metric" size >papers. I am only trying to say they are not really "better" (with the >above minor exception), they are NOT part of the SI system, and I do not >think that pushing metric-sized paper is necessarily a good use of limited >pro-metrication resources. > My dear friend, Jim. You can't possibly deny the additional benefit of magnification when photocopying documents, for instance, as already vehicled here. Switching to 200% or 50% sizes would suit *perfectly* A-series paper sizes, would it not? Now, not that I'm advocating such changes in the US either. So, your observation below does have merits, evidently.
Marcus >Where we can reasonably change, fine. Where we cannot, let's tilt at taller >windmills. > > >Jim Elwell >Electrical Engineer >Industrial manufacturing manager >Salt Lake City, Utah, USA >www.qsicorp.com > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
